a) My interpretation of “A,” “B,” and “C” players

For “A” positions, “A” players’ performance evaluation scores should at least have three “5” and PXT scores should at least have three items no less than 80. There are two exceptions: William Myers (Medical director) and Louis Tragone (Medical director). Although they have four “4” and one “5” in performance evaluation, their PXT scores are all above 85. This indicates that they are suitable for the position in reality. “B” players include people whose performance evaluation scores range from “2” (appear in Perf Eval People, Perf Eval Relationship, and Perf Eval Self-development) to “5” and people who may have high scores in performance evaluation but low scores in PXT. “C” players are people who has very low scores in both evaluation and PXT.
For “B” and “C” positions, “A” players are people who have at least three “5” in performance evaluation scores and PXT scores are above 85. “B” players’ performance evaluation scores range from “2” to “4”. “C” players are people whose performance evaluation scores are “1” and “2”.
Thus we can see the percentage of “A,” “B,” and “C” players in “A,” “B,” and “C,” positions shown in Table 1.
Table 1

According to Table 1, there are 49% “A” players, 66% “B” players, and 79% “C” players in “A” position. “C” players’ percentage in “A” position is much larger than “A” players’. But in “C” position, “A” players’ percentage is larger than “C” players. Thus, KGW’s weakness is that there is no enough “A” players in “A” position to generate profit for company and that there are too many “A” players in “C” position for costing money. In the long term, risk can be that the company is unable to generate revenue from “A” position and cost much money in “C” position. But there are opportunities for KGW to train potential “B” players into “A” players in reasonable budget and get rid